Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/450/2018

Arun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Flipkart Internet - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar

11 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

====

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/450/2018
Date of Institution	:	13/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	11/06/2019

 

Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Bindeshwari Parshad Yadav, R/o H.No.3218, Mouli Jagran Complex, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

[1]    Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560034 (India), through its Director/ Managing Director.

[2]    Binny Bansal, Director, Flipkart Internet Pvt. Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560034 (India).

[3]    Uprise Bharat Industries, 3/122 UGF Karan Street, Vishwas Nagar, New Delhi, through its Proprietor/ Partner.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
	:	Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte.

 

PER DR.S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         In brief, the Complainant booked one mobile handset (Xaiomi Mi A1 Gold, 64GB) on 15.07.2018 on the website of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, which was sold by Opposite Party No.3. The said mobile handset was delivered to the Complainant on 18.07.2018 on payment of Rs.15,869/-. However, on opening the box, the Complainant was shocked to see one old Nokia Handset instead of Xaiomi Mi A1 Gold, 64 GB. As such, the Complainant immediately brought the said fact to the notice of Opposite Party No.1, who though assured to resolve the issue, but did nothing to redress the grievance of the Complainant and eventually blocked his account by giving vague reasons. Hence the complainant has brought this consumer complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the complaint and filed their written statement, inter alia, pleading that they merely acts as an intermediary i.e. providing the seller and the buyer a platform to do online purchase and sale and other than it, answering Opposite Parties are not involved in any other aspect. The product in question was sold by a seller (Opposite Party No.3) and not by the answering Opposite Parties and therefore, the answering Opposite Parties cannot be made liable for the negligence, if any, of some third party. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  
4.         The complainant has filed a replication, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         It is evident from Ex. C-1 that the Complainant online purchased one Xaiomi Mi A1 Gold, 64GB mobile handset for Rs.15,869/- from Flipkart Internet Private Limited (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2) sold by Opposite Party No.3. Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-7 are the photographs which show that one old Nokia Handset was delivered to the Complainant instead of the booked Xaiomi Mi A1 Gold, 64GB mobile handset. Ex.C-8 (colly) are the e-mails fortifying the fact that the Complainant though aired his grievance to the Opposite Parties, but they failed to provide resolution thereof to him.
8.         Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 has argued that they are not responsible for the product that are listed on their website by various third party sellers. However, we are not impressed with this limb of argument. Since the product was sold at the platform of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we are of the concerted opinion that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are solely liable if the product sold by a third party seller (Opposite Party No.3) on their platform turned to be defective product or otherwise. Thus, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 cannot be allowed to take a shield, to evade their liability on the ground that the Sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website.
9.         In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party No.3, who was duly served, and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel. It is thus, established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice. Also, the Opposite Parties did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant when contacted by him, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.
10.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To pay Rs.15,869/- to the Complainant;

 [b]   To pay Rs.7,500/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
12.         The Complainant shall return the Nokia Handset in question, if it is in his possession, to the Opposite Parties, after the compliance of the order.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-		Sd/-
11/06/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]		[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member		President
“Dutt”